Why did God destroy Sodom?
21 September 2005 by SeanWhy was Sodom destroyed? Because it was decadent and there were homosexuals and all that sinful stuff, right? That’s what the Fundies say, isn’t it? But right in Ezekiel, The Lord tells us why he destroyed the city: because they didn’t take care of their poor…
48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
49 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy…”
22 September 2005, on 10:41 am
Nice try, Sean. While Ezekiel does recount some of the reasons God judged Sodom it does not provide an exhaustive list of reasons. The full account of Sodom’s sins before God and of God’s judgment is in Genesis. Once again you’ve tried to make a point by presenting half-truths. It’s just not an honest argument.
22 September 2005, on 11:01 am
Heh heh… it’s funny cause it’s Frank…
22 September 2005, on 11:13 am
Ford, if you have an argument that you think refutes mine let’s hear it. Trying to give the impression that my argument isn’t worth a response by laughing only makes it look like you have no valid response and are, therefore, reduced to pretending that you do.
22 September 2005, on 3:07 pm
Right after I hit the submit button it crossed my mind that you were probably going to be pissed off about that comment. I’m not making fun of (this) arguement. I’m making fun of the fact that you’re that guy that usually comes on here to argue against the teaching of evolution (or the non-teaching of intelligent design) and after your arguements have been thoroughly refuted you either aren’t heard from again until the next arguement comes up or continue your arguement as if nobody said anything about it. I personally could care less about this particular arguement because 1) I’m an atheist and could care less whether the bible does or does not promote homosexuality. and 2) Even if it doesn’t promote the death of homosexuals, it still has a lot of other horrible things promoted in it (stoning your disobediant children to death anyone?).
I am a little curious as to why this arguement is on here, perhaps to persuade christians not to hate on homosexuals anymore, or maybe to show that christians just follow what they want the bible to say, but I personally think that accepting something with no evidence (and which actually contradicts current scientific knowledge) is dangerous enough in and of itself and that the details are just icing on the cake.
22 September 2005, on 3:39 pm
Who gives a damn what a bunch of nomadic goat herders had to say about anything a couple thousand years ago?
22 September 2005, on 4:02 pm
” Joe Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Who gives a damn what a bunch of nomadic goat herders had to say about anything a couple thousand years ago?”
Exactly.
22 September 2005, on 4:07 pm
Yes, Frank, you’re right. Unlike the devout, we atheists live in a world of lies, denial and self-perpetuated delusion. We use shady codes of ethics like logic and scientific reasoning to interpret the universe, rather than trusting in an ancient book written by desert nomads who stoned people to death for adultery.
The point of my posting is that I have heard many a Fundie refer to L.A. or San Francisco or Vegas as modern Sodoms — because of the “hedonistic” sexuality on display in these places. When was the last time you heard a preacher say something like “Los Angeles is the modern Sodom because they don’t take care of their poor.” In point of fact, the most successful preachers get rich on taking from the sick and the poor. And the word “sodom” has been etched into the very language to mean Godless butt sex, not failing to help your neighbor put bread on his table.
The discussion here is not so much what is said in the bible, which is chock full of ridiculous contradictions, but how the supposedly devout choose to interpret it. So who is perpetuating the half-truths?
22 September 2005, on 4:18 pm
Sean — “…the most successful preachers get rich on taking from the sick and the poor.” Define “successful preacher.” I have a hunch that your definition of that and mine are completely different.
22 September 2005, on 4:28 pm
I am, of course, talking about televangelists and that ilk. Now you can come back to me and say that good Christians don’t consider those people to be good preachers… Except moderate Christian rarely seem to campaign against those crooks. They let them keep doing what they’re doing in the name of Christianity. I’ll tell you, if those vile parasites were using a book I held sacred to steal from the poor, I would be doing everything I could to discredit them.
Why don’t you ever directly respond to people’s arguments? Do you dispute the fact that right-wing Christians always refer to God’s wrath toward the Sodomites for their sexual behavior but never for failing to care for their poor?
22 September 2005, on 4:38 pm
I do dispute that claim. Every preacher I’ve ever heard who is an expositor (that means preaching through the text as it is written) gives no more weight to the sexual sin than to the other sins. Idolatry was at the top of the list as well. No, good preaching focuses on the complete story in each passage, not a pick-and-choose style. I do not dispute that there are those who do, in fact, focus only on the homosexuality in Sodom, they would be considered topical preachers (as opposed to the expositors I mentioned before). Their method is to choose a topic and then go find all the verses in Scripture that support their point. It is an inferior method of preaching and of biblical interpretation.
22 September 2005, on 4:54 pm
Interesting, but I don’t recall Sean arguing that they give more weight to certain topics, rather he’s arguing about how the preachers choose to interpret the text.
Of course I’m not necessarily denying what you said Frank, but I’m pointing out that you and Sean are having two completely different arguments.
22 September 2005, on 5:04 pm
Why was God so vague that His book necessitates “interpreting”? Oh, wait, god’s not real…
22 September 2005, on 5:04 pm
Well, strictly speaking as a casual observer on this one (and not that my anecdotal evidence means anything in the end), I’ll only just say that, in all honesty, of all the times I’ve heard xians talk about and refer to Sodom, whether it be in a “classroom” or in discussion (i.e., not just all the Pat Robertsons in the world — which still leaves mucho amounts of xians), this is the first time (for me) that poor people have actually been the focus in a discussion of Sodom.
22 September 2005, on 9:28 pm
Ford — Sean said, “Do you dispute the fact that right-wing Christians always refer to God’s wrath toward the Sodomites for their sexual behavior but never for failing to care for their poor?” He was asking whether I dispute the idea that Christians give more weight to homosexuality when discussing this topic to the exclusion of other sins (i.e. failing to care for the poor).
I’m pretty sure we’re engaged in the same argument.
22 September 2005, on 9:41 pm
I’ve always sort of liked the Sodom story–as a historical literary artifact, I mean.
It shows that cities have always had their homosexual subcultures, and that superstitious religious bumpkins have always been freaked out about that fact. And have had to create horror stories about it. Joe had it right. We’re talking about a bunch of ignorant fucking goat herders who came to the big apple of its day, were shocked by what they found–all kinds of “decadence” I’m sure, not just homosexuality–and got this legend rolling.
2800 years later, Frank thinks its the holy word of god.
23 September 2005, on 8:24 am
You know, it’s hard to get a legend about the utter destruction of a city rolling … unless, that is, the city was actually destroyed. I could start spreading the rumor that Dallas was destroyed by God because, after years of claiming the Cowboys are “America’s Team,” God finally got fed up. But if Dallas is still there then it’s pretty easy to dispute me.
Oh, y’all really crack me up with the “ignorant goat herder” stuff. Do you think no one in antiquity was ever intelligent? Are you unaware that the Bible was written by Kings, doctors, and highly educated people as well as “ignorant goat herders?”
23 September 2005, on 8:46 am
Here’s a thought: why do we even bother with Frank? He repeatedly drags the argument back into the First Century. I motion to ignore him from now on and get on to more pressing matters. Time to elevate the conversation.
23 September 2005, on 9:04 am
Sean — the original post “Why did God destroy Sodom” actually set the time frame for this discussion, not me. Nor did I bring up the “ignorant goat herders” of the time. And, FYI, the destruction of Sodom took place WAAY before the first century.
Now, you challenged me to directly respond to your argument (#9). This I did in #10. You might want to directly respond to my arguments before you go and feign intellectual superiority by trying to “elevate the conversation.”
23 September 2005, on 10:32 am
You know, it’s hard to get a legend about the utter destruction of a city rolling …
There are plenty of people trying right now to get the legend started that New Orleans was destroyed by god–again, because of the gays. It’s not hard at all when you have a critical mass of superstitious fanatics to keep the nonsense alive.
Okay, Sean, I couldn’t resist that one, but that was my parting shot. Now, I’m ready to elevate.
23 September 2005, on 11:06 am
Frank, you’re pretty funny. I don’t understand how anyone would care to answer you, since they’re justifying your thought that you have a valid argument. I think atheists should think of fundies as ignorant children. And before you think I’ll say otherwise- yes I meant to offend and no I do not feel guilty or empty for my hostility. There is a point where too much tolerance of intolerance will destroy- I’ve tolerated fundementalist religious people long enough and I’m tired of their new found “freedom” to mandate public policies. How has Christianity been repressed? You’re free to practice- why not let the rest of us be free to live. Homosexuals and etc have every right that you do. The constitution was made to protect us from you and your ilk, not to give you impunity from political blame. Don’t bother trying to argue with me. I’m only here to let you know that you are pathetic and small. And now for something truly hilarious! Look closely at the photo in the following url! You might miss the funny part!
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4729/jesuspwnd3gf.jpg
23 September 2005, on 11:14 am
Marcus — what is it about you atheists and your tendency to project on others. I’ve made no claims of Christianity being repressed in America. I’m not trying to limit your ability to live. Do whatever you want. Homosexuals included. You are wrong about one thing. The Constitution was not made to protect atheists from Christians. It was made to protect the god-given liberties of all Americans from government. For all of your attempts to “offend” me by calling me an “ignorant child” and “pathetic and small” one would think you’d have at least bothered to research your American history before making a claim like that. You do know what the word “ignorant” means, right?
23 September 2005, on 11:46 am
Heh- Frank, you are the kind of Christian that thinks America was founded on Christian values, aren’t you? It was not meant to protect religious individuals from the government, it was meant to prevent religion from instilling religious “morality” into government institution.
And you, who are religious, call me ignorant? Heh… very funny.
Get a secular education, not the befuddled substitute you seem to have.
23 September 2005, on 1:24 pm
Marcus — can you READ buddy? I said the constitution was made to protect the god-given liberties of ALL Americans from government, NOT protect “religious individuals.”
The foundational principles of America are found in the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed by our creator with certain rights…life, liberty, pursuit of happines. Sound familiar? Our rights are ours by virtue of our birth. Legitimate governments exist ONLY for the protection of those rights. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the federal government alone. Not the states and not the people.
You are demonstrating a remarkable inability to follow a logical argument. What are you, 14? 15?
23 September 2005, on 2:12 pm
But you see Frank, you are wrong. There are no such things as “god-given” rights, because god does not exist. If you believe in what you have written, then you should accept that abortion should be allowed to remain legal and homosexuals be given all the rights they demand. As far as the bile, sorry, bible being written by “kings, doctors, and educated peoples”- I think their degrees would be revoked if they were alive today for not having kept with current researches. Unless you think that burning pitch is still a good cure for erectile dysfunction. Rights are endowed by society and government. If you believe you have a right to anything for simple birth, you are a great fool. The government is further mandated to protect the negative rights of all people. That means religious restrictions on the secular population would be in violation of their negative rights; therefore, mandated to protect me and others from religious vitrol and the religious influences in, say, public SCHOOLS. I say we also teach Taoist, Buddist, Native American, and Mayan creation myths in school science classes. Sound acceptable? I didn’t think so.
As far as not being able to follow logic- you accept the bile, sorry, bible as truth and Jebus as salvation, and I’m illogical?
As before, little Franklin, get an education.
23 September 2005, on 2:50 pm
Marcus — I do believe what I’ve written but abortion should be illegal because the practice of it violates the baby’s right to life (which supercedes a mother’s right to convenience). Homosexuals already have every right that all American’s have under the constitution. If you refer to marriage then I’d reply that the state has no business determining who can and can’t get married in the first place. There are already “churches” out there that “marry” homosexuals … have at it.
Now, you said, “Rights are endowed by society and government. If you believe you have a right to anything for simple birth, you are a great fool.”
Well, Marcus, I’m sure you believe that, but you are completely at odds with America’s founders and it’s founding documents. Please consider the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence …
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Jefferson makes it clear that we have unalienable (defined as incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. He further makes it clear that the government’s role is to recognize (not grant) and protect the rights we already have. He goes on to say quite explicitly that governments derive their just powers (i.e. right to govern) from the people. The people do NOT derive their rights from the government.
You are 180 degrees dead wrong on your view about the origins of American liberty and the role of the constitution. There are, however, many ideological views that are consistent with your view of the state as being superior to the individual. A few examples include, socialism, Marxism, Stalinism, fascism, and communism.
You are perfectly welcome to subscribe to those notions about government. What you may not do is legitimately claim the legacy of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Your views on government are more represented in history by Marx, Stalin, and Hitler.
23 September 2005, on 3:29 pm
You know, it’s hard to get a legend about the utter destruction of a city rolling … unless, that is, the city was actually destroyed.
LOL Frank. You’re right - we should believe every urban legend that comes around. Remember that one about…fuck it, go here and read about all the silly legends that exist.
What about Norse and Greek legends? Are they true too? Can one really walk on rainbows? Was there really a Labyrinth inhabited by a Minotaur? When you tell yourself why you dismiss these silly legends and gods, you’ll understand why we dismiss yours…
23 September 2005, on 4:06 pm
Frank: a zygote is not a baby any more than a lizard egg is.
Also, this statement is ludicrous: Homosexuals already have every right that all American’s have under the constitution. There are already “churches” out there that “marry” homosexuals … have at it.
I have a dear friend who is gay and seriously ill. When he recenlty tried to get on his partner’s health insurance, they were told that, due to an oversight, his partner’s previous domestic partner had never been taken off his insurance. Okay, then, they asked, can we please switch that out? They were told that there is a year waiting period before you can list a new domestic partner. We don’t have a year, they said. He is seriously ill right now. Answer? Tough shit.
However, if they were straight, they could go to Vegas tonight, get married in The Chapel O’ Hunka Hunka Burnin’ Love, and my friend would be on the insurance in a week or so.
And this is in a state that actually allows civil unions and domestic partnerships between gays, which many states do not.
I have a group of close friends who are gay, who all actually have far healthier marriages than the straight friends I have, and yet all of them were recently told that their marriage licenses were null and void. Imagine the paroxysms of rage a straight Christian couple (who will probably be divorced in a few years anyway) would go through if their state Supreme Court suddenly told them that their marriage licenses were worthless because they loved the wrong person?
Not to mention that it took a very recent Supreme Court case to determine gay men weren’t committing a crime when they made love to the person they had lived with half their lives.
So… this begs the obious question: what the fuck are you talking about?
23 September 2005, on 4:15 pm
“You are 180 degrees dead wrong on your view about the origins of American liberty and the role of the constitution. There are, however, many ideological views that are consistent with your view of the state as being superior to the individual. A few examples include, socialism, Marxism, Stalinism, fascism, and communism.
You are perfectly welcome to subscribe to those notions about government. What you may not do is legitimately claim the legacy of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Your views on government are more represented in history by Marx, Stalin, and Hitler. ”
Just like an idiot to Goodwin the situation. Nice going, ignoramous.
About marriage- the onus is on you religious people to support gay marriage, despite there being what you refer to in your snide manner as “churches”.
And yes, the document does say “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and the government must secure these rights even to the suppression of some of the rights of those who might hinder the accomplishment of these goals. In other words, xianity must be restricted to assure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for gay peoples, women and ethnically diverse peoples. And the state must be superior to the individual in terms that it assure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Get it, moron? That doesn’t make the state facist, communist, socialist, or any other term from your ad populum reel.
And yes I can claim the legacies of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison would support me- they were not xians and they did not found this country under the precept of xianity. If anything, they were anti-xians, as were many key founding fathers.
If you want to intone facism, you should look in the mirror. You silly person.
You still need to get a secular education.
23 September 2005, on 4:20 pm
Gosh, Sean, you’re right. Why there’s never been a newly married couple who had trouble getting insurance coverage worked out. Your friend who is gay and seriously ill (I’m very sorry to hear of it) would probably face all kinds of trouble getting health insurance in any scenerio because his illness is a “prexisting condition.” This is a problem straight people have to face as well. But beyond all of that my statement was that homosexuals have all of the rights UNDER THE CONSTITUTION that everyone else has. There is no constitutional right to health care or to a job or to hundreds of other “rights” Americans have come to believe are in there.
As to “what the fuck I’m talking about” please go back and read the thread to gain a context for the conversation. But basically the subject is our constitutional rights. Marcus thinks the government grants them to us. I say they are unalienable and our birth right (you know like Thomas Jefferson said). Marcus brought up the whole homosexual thing. Not me.
23 September 2005, on 5:24 pm
You are just simply dead wrong, Frank. There are a number of states that have laws that say that gays cannot marry. And you have no idea about my friend’s partner’s insurance. He works for one of the most successful companies in the country, has amazing healt coverage, and my friend would
23 September 2005, on 5:55 pm
Frank, you dumbass. Rights ARE given to us by the government. You are an animal. Animals have no inherent rights. Organized animals that can be rational are given rights by their own governance; therefore, you have rights by the grace of SOCIETY, not birth. You are just a mammal. If you have rights by birth, than I demand you stop eating meat as you are harming the rights of born animals. Oh, but “god (small ‘g’) gave them to us”- neat, arguing a point with a MYTHOLOGY. Rights are only unalienable if god exists; god does not exist; therefore, rights must be established and given by society; therefore, government must serve as a mediator for society; thus, government grants your rights. If there are unalienable rights, then the death sentence is morally repugnant- prisoners must then be incarcerated only. Denying abortion would be morally repugnant as it removes Pursuit of Happiness from the woman who demands it. If you are reading to the letter the law written 200+ years ago, then you should also support slavery. Your rigid claims show YOU to be the jingoistic facist.
And you need a secular education, sassafrass.
23 September 2005, on 8:24 pm
Dayum. Looks like somehow my last comment got cut off. What I meant to say was my friend would be covered, regardless of his previously existing condition. The company is a medical company itself — they have amazing health insurance coverage. I know others who work there and they say it is phenomenal and nobody is ever turned away for coverage… Anyway, nitpicking the semantics here — that you are saying that they have equal protection under the Constitution (which I don’t even know to be true… Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Where does it say in the Constitution that gays have equal rights under the law?) — this doesn’t matter. What matters is having equal rights under state and federal laws, and they quite simply do not. They can’t get married legally here, so therefore they cannot solve this insurance problem. It’s that simple. If they were straight, they’d get married and the problem would be solved. They are gay, can’t marry, and they are at an impasse until this year waiting period is up, by which point my good friend may be dead. Capiche?
24 September 2005, on 8:06 am
Oh please, you expect christians to actually read the bible? It’s not for reading, it’s for beating people over the head with. Next you’ll be expecting the idiots who like to quote Leviticus re: homosexuality being an abomination to put their money where their ignorant mouths are and cut their beards square, but some slaves, and go out and kill their neighbors who work on Sunday.
24 September 2005, on 10:30 pm
Marcus — dude, you are going to have to stop assuming you know what my argument is and actually read my argument. I am NOT arguing that our liberties are (necessarily) a gift of God, nor am I arguing that Jefferson, Washington, and Madison were Christians (I never once made that claim on this thread). I am arguing that our rights are innate (defined as existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth), inherent (defined as belonging to the essential nature of something), and unalienable (defined as incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred). This is the view of the rights of man expressed in the Declaration of Independence and it is THAT source from which I am drawing my conclusion.
The founding fathers did NOT accept the notion that their rights were granted by any government (if they had they would not have felt justified in revolting). Did you read the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence in my previous post or did you just skip over it because you think you know what it says? Here it is again … with explanation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created (indicates a belief that our rights come from a source higher than government since the government obviously did not “create” us) equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (again, some higher power than government) with certain unalienable Rights, (see definitions above that explain the in-born and non-transferable nature of these rights) that among these are Life (you think government grants LIFE?), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure (protect NOT grant) these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (means governments get their rights from us NOT the other way around), –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (this indicates they believed the people to be superior to the government NOT the other way around. We are sovereigns NOT subjects), and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
To think that GOVERNMENT grants rights is the exact opposite of the beliefs of the founders. I was not trying to “Goodwin the situation” when I compared your views on government to the views of Marx, Stalin, and Hitler. I was making a legitimate comparison. They held to the belief that government GRANTS rights just as you do. Your view of government and their view of government is completely consistent on this point. AND it is completely contrary to the views of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.
Follow your view to it’s logical conclusion. If government GRANTS our rights then government is at liberty to REVOKE our rights at anytime, right? Since you’ve already denied that we have any birth-rights (and I have to assume that includes those enumerated by Jefferson “Life and Liberty”)then logic demands I conclude you think the state has the right to revoke anyone’s right to life at anytime the state deems it appropriate. Isn’t that what Nazi Germany did to the Jews in Germany? The German state determined the Jews no longer had the right to life (and according to you the state grants that right and may revoke it)and so was justified in the holocaust.
This is the logical conclusion to your view of government-endowed rights. It IS consistent with Marx, Stalin, and Hitler. Now, Marcus, stop trying to argue the strawman and actually read (and comprehend) my argument. It has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism at this point, only about the founder’s view of American liberty and it’s relationship to the government.
25 September 2005, on 10:41 am
This is the logical conclusion to your view of government-endowed rights. It IS consistent with Marx, Stalin, and Hitler.
First, just as an aside, I find it funny that this view of rights-given-from-without-and-taken-away-at-any-time is not only characterized as seriously negative by Frank (justifying the holocaust, etc.), but also happens to be perfectly “consistent” with his (one assumes positive and justified) view of god-giving-us-rights-to-live-and-therefore-justified-to-kill-us-whenever-he-wants-however-he-wants-to. Once again, when humans do it to each other, it’s really bad — but when god does it to us, well, then, we deserve it.
Second, I think Frank should get a t-shirt or something from GIFS. What a celebrity he’s become, folks. Now I’m gettin’ all misty-eyed…
Third, I guess this comment is coming close to breaking my record of comments on one of my previous posts. So, Sean, you suck.
25 September 2005, on 10:52 am
Moron, the govenment constantly revokes individual rights, this is known as arrest, trial and incarceration. The government has the right to revoke rights at anytime, but this power is restricted by the will of the people. If the people demand a facist state, they will get one. Imagine if the September 9/11 attacks didn’t happen- the Patriot Act would have never been passed, but it did because the people wanted it to pass. Of course, no one that I know wanted it passed, so the government must have exerted power over our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is simple fact that voters grant power to the government and our notions of morality tend to guide those decisions. Morality is a very flexible thing (if you don’t agree, you need to read more history). If we are going to hold these laws to their extant, we should not interfere in foreign polices, right? But we do because the American people generally feel what is our ’sunnum bonnum’ is the same for everyone on Earth; therefore we invade countries, influence elections, etc. If we are to truly be concerned about the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” in our own country: why does poverty still run rampant (you were probably surprised by the people in Katrina’s wake); why doesn’t the government eliminate racial hate groups (freedom of speech trumps freedom from harm? Yes against terrorists, no against the Klan?); why are there Christian groups allowed to promote the murder of interacial couples?. If we truly controlled the government, would we still be in Iraq? Would we allow race crime atrocities to continue in our own country? And “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is still a statement of belief. Belief does not make a statement true. WE ARE STILL MAMMALS. It is tacit that the individuals MUST believe in a god for those truths to be self-evident. The laundry list you make of “world evils” is simply your own strawman. How should I dismiss it? Atheists are just as able to aake morally righteous decisions, while still realizing that what could be considered morally repugnant is still an option. That is real freedom- avoiding sin because you are afraid of hell is not. No one has rights. We are protected by our own society and countless social projects can prove this. You should furthermore note that by focusing only on the “life” clause of the Decleration, you are furthering your own strawman argument. Of course I’m not going to argue that life should be disposable. I know that it is, but I won’t take that route. Duh. There you go, I stuck to your “argument”, happy now? Furthermore, the Decleration of Independence is NOT a document that determines law in this country; if you think it does, you are sorely deluded- learn some history.
And get an education.
25 September 2005, on 2:48 pm
> I just wanna thank Frank, without whose afronts (sometimes brilliantly twisted), this comment would not carry this number today.
And Bob, right back atcha, bro’.
25 September 2005, on 2:50 pm
Now I am shamelessly trying to increase the number of comments. No, but really, Marcus… Brilliantly reasoned and stated. Good on ya.
25 September 2005, on 5:19 pm
Marcus — I’m not debating a government’s use of arrest and due process to restrict the rights of citizens who are suspected of crimes. I’m saying that governments are NOT the origin of our innate rights of life, liberty and of our right to pursue happiness. These are rights that the founders explicitly said were ours by virtue of our existence and that men create governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights. I don’t see how you can even debate that point, it is spelled out in freakin’ black and white and should be plainly evident to anyone (provided they have even the most basic of reading comprehension skills).
Once again, I’m not arguing that this is exclusively a “Christian” point of view. You’ve stated time and time again that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were “anti-xian” (which is a debate for another time). But there they were articulating the view of individual rights that I’ve tried to get you to understand. Arguing against the distortions of this founding principle as we see them in today’s government is completely beside the point and useless. My argument, when boiled down to its essence, is this: the founders recognized that all people have inherent rights that cannot be legitimately taken away by any government. It’s not that hard to understand, especially when they’ve spelled it out for us.
I know see that one of two things is happening. Either you are incapable of comprehending the wording of the Declaration of Independence and are therefore blinded to the foundational principles on which this country was built OR you can see those principles but have argued around them because they don’t mesh with your predetermined worldview. Either way I’m banging my head against the wall here trying to educate someone who is either incapable or unwilling to learn a most basic fact of American history. I am now leaving you to your erroneous beliefs about the foundation of American government.
Oh, as for your constant recommendation that I “get an education”…
I’ve got a bachelor’s and two master’s degrees. Thanks for your expressing your concern about the value of an education. Perhaps you’d like to take your own advice.
Later, Marcus.
25 September 2005, on 8:33 pm
Thanks, Sean.
Frank,
I’m not arguing that the founding fathers did NOT believe in what they wrote. I’m not arguing that the Declaration says other than what is printed on its face. I’m arguing that the premise of “life, liberty”, etc. on its face tacitly requires a belief in an intelligent animator. I’m arguing that there is no such thing as an “intelligent designer” (put with such fervency by “scientists”); subsequently, if there is no such thing as an intelligent designer, than there can be no “truths” that humanity deserves “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. You howl about the “founders” and the framers as if they shit spun gold. They did believe in some kind of intelligent animator, yet since I’m an atheist, I don’t; therefore, I don’t believe in “inherent human rights”, but I do believe in rational morality. This is how an atheist can be on par if not superior to a xian in moral terms. I agree with this:
“the founders recognized that all people have inherent rights that cannot be legitimately taken away by any government.”
But it’s difficult getting you to understand that the government must violate this rule to ensure that it remains true for a majority. Even then, the government takes these rights away with impunity. If you can’t see the evidence, you are too blind to teach.
As far as your bachelor’s degree and two master’s degrees are concerned (run out of gas before a Phd? I didn’t), that fails to impress until you tell me for what studies they were awarded. Of course, I’ll trust nothing that you tell me, as you seem to be unable to research BASIC HISTORY and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Sure, you can read the Declaration, but that proves nothing- it’s taught in grade school, ad nauseum.
I don’t know what university you went to, but a monkey would probably be able to make it at your alma mater.
Get a real education. Don’t send for it with box tops.
Enjoy, Franklin.
30 September 2005, on 1:25 am
I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to be able to give you the answer as to why God destroyed Sodom. However, you have driven me to read this book.
Once I have read it, I will give you feedback. But Sean, isn’t there more to the story other than in Ezekial? — I just did some manual research, which means I flipped pages in my own little trusty Bible; and I found
30 September 2005, on 1:33 am
Crap. Sorry about that. Got excited…
I’ll comment again later.
30 September 2005, on 1:40 am
Okay, our comments app may be fucking up, cuz we are all getting cut off sometimes. Dena, please repost the end of your comment.
By the way, an important approach to this worth mentioning is that Sodom may well be mythical.
Check out some text on this at Wikipedia.
30 September 2005, on 1:44 am
Now I fucked up royally. Here is another attempt at linking to the Wikipedia article above.
30 September 2005, on 6:06 pm
Okay, after doing a little investigation I found where Sodom was talked about in the Bible; other than in Ezekial. AND had I paid attention to Frank’s first comment, it would have made things alot easier instead of searching for it myself.
But yes, like Frank mentioned, it states in Genesis Chapter 18 verse 16 and on, how God had heard that there was some sinful nature going on in Sodom. So He went in to check things out…blah, blah, blah, ya’ll know how the story goes.
I find it amazing that out of all the people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, only 3 were innocent. Three!
::On my way to check out your text at Wikipedia::
30 September 2005, on 6:11 pm
Wait a second: I thought Frank was atheist. Why did I think that?
3 October 2005, on 11:54 pm
That’s a hilarious final comment for this thread, Dena (Frank?? Atheist?? Ha!), but I couldn’t let it rest as the last post because of what you said about Genesis and Sodom. I should have been more clear in my original post — and not doing so allowed Frank, as ever, to throw the argument into meaningless semantics instead of logic — but I clarified rather quickly what many of us already noted as the irony of the original oberservation: being that evangelical types *never* talk about the idea that Sodom was destroyed for not taking care of its poor, but *always* talk about the idea that it was obliterated for too much homosexual coupling… as the very etymology of our modern word “sodomy” proves. That was the entire point. Hard-case Christians: stop the hatred, show some compassion for the poor like Christ did, get over your homophobia (how are they hurting you?? how??) and move on.
4 October 2005, on 12:10 am
Oh my. No, I am not shamelessly trying to creep the post count up toward 50. I was just suddenly struck by something Dena said: “God had heard that there was some sinful nature going on in Sodom. So He went in to check things out…blah, blah, blah, ya’ll know how the story goes.”
“God had heard?”
Stop the presses. An almighty, all-knowing, omnipotent being had to wait for gossip to reach his ears from some puny humans before going down and checking out what might be happening in some itty-bitty city on some itty-bitty planet called Earth?
Are we kidding ourselves here? Is this not the epitome of what is childish about this world view?
Yup, I looked it up, and just as Dena said, Gawd, obviously high on the 420, had to snap himself out of a perfectly good smoke-out to see what was going down in, like, that Sodom place, man:
Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor’rah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.”
Like, dude… I don’t know about you, but to quote George Carlin, it seems like rather than a Supreme Being, what we have here on our is an office temp with a bad attitude. Believing in this fucked up dude is scarier than not believing in him.
4 October 2005, on 8:20 am
As everyone knows, I’ve been trying to beat the Creationist IDiots over the head with my Staff of Knowledge + 50, but this just shows why the Judeo-Christian view of an allmighty is rather…silly.
By the way, which God does one believe in? OT God, NT God, Trinity God? As I’ve stated before, I was a Deist for a long time, mainly because of my ignorance of cosmology/abiogenesis/evolution. The universe is incredible. Why destroy that with “goddidit”?
23 June 2006, on 12:50 am
[...] Or, perhaps it was for not taking care of their poor. The term sodomy was first used by St. Peter Damian in the 11th century, when antihomo sentiment ran rampant in Europe. By 1350, most of the continent had sodomy statutes on the books, according to gay historian John Boswell. [...]
21 October 2006, on 7:12 pm
To, however, dose with Drano and methamphetamine not be lively.
how you, DEER?
get up here and REfuck the spine of GO(nA)D. Dave Wyndorf is an ONION and ALAVERT guy.
Bsides if you be live, ASS hurtin’ parts unmentionable, then you must be live Italian Meatball because Arthur- King of the Britons is good and he never lisps. the Bi-sexua-ble
Delivers
Innoculations
Mented(DE)
Unsinkable Fecal Leavings
Earthworms cASSerole!
and the colorFOOL girls warn us about LIPS like you’uns’ quiltin’ bee. If you heart smell, get your ELF in a crouch and hump your live action l’eventieur. BS be for fevered godSEED does you like Sodomy, Gomer?
when you walked into the party, orbs wiggling in a family way, its sick when your OWN MILK leave brown stain when poured through handkerchief start shagging treacly ashtray snack.
KNOW it BECOME it SPUNK it, BEEFEATER, ginned UP and RUMMY we be. GOD is of anyone de SCENT du FEMMES forking icehole (blastocyst)
Ewell B. Dampe dwell. MY brain runs from my NOSE to mess around my words au COQ-OVEN angina YUGO wander Bumph UCK ye GYPPED. SQUIT!!!!!!!!
21 October 2006, on 7:22 pm
Uncle Steve, why is your thingie in my poopoo?
21 October 2006, on 7:27 pm
Why do trolls like Rijah always post somewhere hidden in the archives?
21 October 2006, on 7:28 pm
SMEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAA!!!!!
21 October 2006, on 7:33 pm
Play FreeBird?
21 October 2006, on 7:52 pm
bLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…THREAT OF INFECTING THIS SITE WITH A VIRUS…I AM A BIG STRONG TOUGH TROLL! SEE HOW MEAN AND PUFFED UP I AM YOU EVIL DEMONS?!!